OVERTON
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA

U.S. | 1914-11-09
No. 40
235 U.S. 31 Supreme Court of the United States (1914) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 59 L. Ed. 112 · 35 S. Ct. 14 · 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1043 · SCDB 1914-030
Cited by 22 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A defendant convicted under Oklahoma's statute prohibiting the illegal movement of liquor challenged his conviction on the grounds that the law violated the Commerce Clause, arguing that his movement was part of an interstate shipment from Missouri to which the statute did not apply. The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, finding both the Commerce Clause challenge and the claim that the jury disregarded evidence frivolous, since the trial court had properly instructed the jury that the statute did not apply to interstate commerce and the record provided no basis to assume the jury ignored this instruction.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Me. Chief Justice White.

Memorandum opinion by direction of the court, by

Mr. Chief Justice White.

The verdict and sentence were on an indictment for illegally moving liquor (§ 4180, Snyder’s Compiled Laws of Oklahoma, 1909). The defense was that the movement was to complete an interstate shipment from Missouri. The court instructed that the statute did not apply to such a shipment and hence if the movement was as asserted, there must be an acquittal. Under this situation' the contention here made that the statute was repugnant to the commerce clause is too frivolous to support jurisdiction. And this is also true of the contention that there is jurisdiction because the facts establish that the conclusion of guilt could only have been reached by plainly disregarding the proof as to the' character of the shipment, thus in fact applying the statute to interstate commerce,1 since the record affords no justification for the assumption upon which the proposition rests.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Albers Commission Co., 223 U. S. 573, 591; Creswill v. Knights of Pythias, 225 U. S. 246, 261; Southern Pacific Co. v. Schuyler, 227 U. S. 601, 611; Portland Ry. Co. v. Oregon R. R. Com'n, 229 U. S. 397, 411-412; Miedreich v. Lauenstein, 232 U. S. 236, 243-244; Missouri, Kans. & Tex. Ry. v. West, 232 U. S. 682, 691-692.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

  • United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1916)
  • United States v. Gilbertson, 111 F.2d 978 (7th Cir. 1940)
    …is exercised prior to the expiration of the period of restriction. United States v. Jackson, 280 U.S. 183, 50 S.Ct. 143, 74 L.Ed. 361; Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U.S. 286, 31 S.Ct. 578, 55 L.Ed. 738; United States v. Bartlett, 235 U.S. 72, 35 S.Ct. 14, 59 L.Ed. 137. The restriction against alienation binds the land for the period restricted,’and the death of the allottee and inheritance ’ of the land by his heirs does not operate to remove the restriction, except in cases where Congress has expr…
  • Filler v. Steele, 241 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1916)
    …(2) Allen v. Georgia, 166 U. S. 138, 140; Felts v. Murphy, 201 U. S. 123, 129; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78; Jordan v. Massachusetts, 225 U. S. 167; (3) Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry., 228 U. S. [*649] 596, 600; Overton v. Oklahoma, 235 U. S. 31; Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14. Mr. Ralph D. Hurst and Mr. Thomas H. Greevy for the appellant. Mr. C. Ward Eicher, Mr. George E. Barron and Mr. Cecil E. Heller for the appellee.…

Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw